Author Topic: Re: ARFs may not be for everyone? (Read 10726 times)

Steve Fitton · « **on:** October 21, 2010, 01:18:01 PM »

Personally, I'd like to see Brodaks go back to expanding their excellent in house kit line and let the ARFs die away. My 2 cents (no, not a political diatribe) after seeing years of the ARFs come and go is that stunt was a better place without them. I don't think they brought hordes of new pilots into stunt, and the siren song of a killer big stunter without the effort required to actually build one left many dissapointed when the ARF simply didn't hold up under very hard use.
Keeping up with the myriad chinese QC issues with ARFs often left Brodaks factory people exhausted with just keeping up as they boxed and shipped hundreds of planes, then they had to deal with the scores of returns for shipping damage or QC issues. I think it left them *just barely* able to keep up with production of the existing in house made kits, and seems to have stifled the release of significant numbers of new kits.
I know even my club buddies might disagree, but as I watched them, skilled scratch builders every one, tinker and struggle away with whatever the latest ARF was, I can't help but feel that the ARFs stifled the development of pilots as well as kit production. Somebody who really wants to fly stunt deserves better than what the Chinese can produce...

Derek Barry · « **Reply #1 on:** October 21, 2010, 02:40:30 PM »

Quote from: Steve Fitton on October 21, 2010, 01:18:01 PM

Personally, I'd like to see Brodaks go back to expanding their excellent in house kit line and let the ARFs die away. My 2 cents (no, not a political diatribe) after seeing years of the ARFs come and go is that stunt was a better place without them. I don't think they brought hordes of new pilots into stunt, and the siren song of a killer big stunter without the effort required to actually build one left many dissapointed when the ARF simply didn't hold up under very hard use.
Keeping up with the myriad chinese QC issues with ARFs often left Brodaks factory people exhausted with just keeping up as they boxed and shipped hundreds of planes, then they had to deal with the scores of returns for shipping damage or QC issues. I think it left them *just barely* able to keep up with production of the existing in house made kits, and seems to have stifled the release of significant numbers of new kits.
I know even my club buddies might disagree, but as I watched them, skilled scratch builders every one, tinker and struggle away with whatever the latest ARF was, I can't help but feel that the ARFs stifled the development of pilots as well as kit production. Somebody who really wants to fly stunt deserves better than what the Chinese can produce...

Amen

jim welch · « **Reply #2 on:** October 21, 2010, 02:52:14 PM »

AMEN/X2 Jimmy

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #3 on:** October 21, 2010, 04:18:57 PM »

Quote from: Steve Fitton on October 21, 2010, 01:18:01 PM

Personally, I'd like to see Brodaks go back to expanding their excellent in house kit line and let the ARFs die away.

Maybe let their super-expansive line of ARF's shrink tremendously, and let it focus more on beginner/intermediate kind of ships. Of course, Brodak knows how much Brodak's makes on the ARF stuff, so it's his decision.

Quote

Somebody who really wants to fly stunt deserves better than what the Chinese can produce...

The Chinese can produce much better than the Chinese generally will produce. I know, directly and indirectly, several folks who get stuff done in Asia. They're good businessmen without a lot of respect for quality or for us, so if you buy from them you have to keep track of quality yourself, and keep complaining it up. Of course, once you do that it gets reflected in the price. If you want absolute top-notch stuff you need to get it somewhere else, and the price will really reflect that.

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #4 on:** October 21, 2010, 09:46:23 PM »

IMHO: This is a more appropriate Subject title for these posts. This may help keep the other posts on topic/Subject.

Regards,

PS: Steve, et al, I am VERY, VERY Sorry that I deleted your posts in error. I split Dick's informational post into two parts, your posts were placed under the new Subject title above. Then, During the change of Subject TITLE step, I made an error and your posts were deleted by mistake.

Please continue your discussion about kits being a better choice than ARFs, and Chinese Quality, etc. under this new Subject title. TIA :-)

Again, please accept my humble apology for my Moderator error.

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #5 on:** October 21, 2010, 09:55:28 PM »

No way man....ARF's aint for no one no how, except some folks. Some folks like ARF's and they needs them....but not everybody. Did I mention the plane I thought was an ARF but turned out to be an old Ringmaster of mine. Of course that reminds me of the time I flew a McCoy .35, now there was a motor...best motor ever!

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #6 on:** October 21, 2010, 10:27:18 PM »

Hi Glenn,

After reading your post I can only say: ...... "I thought cabin fever didn't kick in until around February up in Alberta"

Stay warm, Sunshine is only a short 7 months away!

Regards,

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #7 on:** October 21, 2010, 11:24:22 PM »

Whats cabin fever? We get out all the time....why I was just out a month or two ago!

Geoff Goodworth · « **Reply #8 on:** October 22, 2010, 05:18:16 AM »

My God!

What's all this gibberish?

There is room in every airforce for an ARC/ARF. I don't know whether he is still doing it and he built it himself, but Ted Fancher used to fly a Goldberg Shoestring—just for fun. Given that there was no plan, Ted used a full size enlargement of the 1/4 scale 3-view on the Goldberg build sheet.

That said, there are plenty of people who are time poor who can enjoy the benefits of a good ARC/ARF—people who probably never aspire to compete at the Nats.

John Brodak opened up the market and there are some aspects of my first ARF from Brodak that I thought pretty ordinary. I fed my views back—as did many others—and the quality in some critical areas has improved dramatically.

As for future supplies, I have no doubt that John Brodak will find a new supplier. That is just the way business is conducted in South East Asia—not just China. And, if you haven't been there or tried to trade with them, you have no idea of how it works.

Patience, friends, patience!

Geoff

Tom Taylor · « **Reply #9 on:** October 22, 2010, 07:20:10 AM »

Rudy,

Thanks for the post. I fly some arf's more because it allows me more air time. I understand pride in building a kit and that quality control is hit or miss, but for myself who just got promoted to intermediate it allows me time to learn the full pattern. Just one man's opinion.

RandySmith · « **Reply #10 on:** October 22, 2010, 07:51:02 AM »

This topic didn't belong in the Admin annoucements so I moved it back where it was,
You didn't delete it , it was just missplaced

Regards
Randy

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #11 on:** October 22, 2010, 08:55:19 AM »

Arfs have their place, simply from the standpoint of time and effort. Choose the right Arf and you're in the air far faster than a scratch or kit build, especially so when it come to a full fues plane. Not all Arfs are equal. My Oriental Arf, first batch sent over five or six years ago, took lots of this and that and some hardcore re-engineering to make it decent enough for my liking. The Vector Arf, on the other hand, about to be assembled in my shop, looks straightforward good enough. The issues with the Oriental that took me lots of time to think through and fix, (engine mount on angled-in bearers, pinched space for control horn link, nose heavy) not a problem with the Vector. Vector Arfs in my club have proven durable excellent fliers. My Primary Force was a season long frustration, due to its soft vibration prone fues. Arf Flite Streaks when powered by an LA25 and the like, a nice quick to the air fun fly stunt trainer. More engine and the nose pops off sooner rather than later. An LA25 should make it through a season or two, before the front end lets loose. Ahh, then there is the covering...

GEOFFREY · « **Reply #12 on:** October 22, 2010, 09:49:23 AM »

In our flying site there are a the very minimum 6 retreads that got into instant flying with ARF"S many have gone to the building board while they enjoy being at the site and at contests while the long task of the build, the paint? the task of building a 40 sized stunt plane is not something we all can do where it can fly right out of the shop. I stand and DROOL over many of the NORTHWEST flyers airplanes , but without the arf it would be a long time before i would be able to join them... Geoffrey back to the endless task of sanding my BOM .

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #13 on:** October 22, 2010, 11:23:11 AM »

I think in the ARF/ARC debate there are two fundamental questions.
1. Is the ARF/ARC good for the top level CLPA fliers?
2. Is the ARF/ARC good for the sunday/sport flier and beginner/intermediate flier?
Because it seems to me that the biggest group of nay sayers are those top level CLPA and die hard BOM pilots. Now I am NOT saying this in a bad way, I think that anyone that spends hundreds of hours building a competition ship will be a little miffed when someone walks in with a monocoated, ten hour, wonder plane and enters "their" competition.

I firmely believe that ARFs/ARCs have a place in our sport of flying control line model airplanes. I for one, like building my own planes, but also have two ARFs, a Nobler that I really like, and an Oriental that has just been completed but not flown. I'm a sunday/sport flier by the way. Never entered a competition unless I absolutely had to.

I guess my biggest problem is....I just don't understand why anyone is actually debating this at all! If you like ARF/ARCs..buy them and enjoy, if you don't like them....don't buy them and enjoy watching us "fiddle" with them!

Norvaldo · « **Reply #14 on:** October 22, 2010, 07:15:42 PM »

Good enough for serious CLPA???
The SV-11 and it's derivates has won so many serious contests that the question seems just stupid. The ARC/ARF SV-11 is just as good a model as the 'standard' SV-11 unless you mess up seriously when putting it together..
It is the same model, it is light , it is straight... what are you missing??
Do you think it will fall apart in a square corner, or fly into the circle because it is longing back to China?
I have 2 SV-11's and i also ordered the Legacy..

"Ted Fancher used to fly a Goldberg Shoestring" and would probably have beaten 98% of us flying that model.

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #15 on:** October 23, 2010, 01:00:52 AM »

Norvaldo has a very good point.

I also have one of Randy's excellent SV-11 ARCs. This plane as delivered, is light, straight and strong. It is as good or better than over 90% of CL builders could produce from a kit. It is built in jigs using very good quality wood. If the pilot has the needed flying skill then this plane can take them to the top at any contest from their local club to the Nats. This is also true of Steve Moon's outstanding Impact ARC. Mine is as close to perfection as Randy's SV-11 is. Again, a plane that is the equal to any plane at the Nat's.

These two new ARCs are not your grandfathers ARF/ARCs! .... Thanks to John and his team, our CL ARF/ARCs have come a long way over the past several years. They have worked closely with their mfg. to make continued progress on improving our CL ARF/ARCs. If you have not seen these latest planes, then you do not realize how far our CL ARF/ARCs have come. It is misleading and unfair for anyone to imply that ARF/ARCs are not very good because someone based their evaluation on past products that are now 3 generations old. I have 9 CL ARC/ARFs, from one of the very 1st TF Flight Streaks to the latest CLPAs planes above. So I have seen the progress and it has been steady and rewarding.

We have about two generations more to go to measure up to the fantastic RC ARFs available now, but I am confident that John, along with the many outstanding designers in the CLPA world, will continue their quest for constant improvement and we will have even better planes in the future.

....... We can dream that Someday we will have: lots of CF, out of the box take-apart, built in quick release hatches, ready for ECL or wet power, quick build technologies, etc., etc.

I am very pleased to see all the positive comments/posts about our CL ARC/ARFs. It is encouraging to see these. I have to figure that someone out there likes them, when you combine both CL ARCs and CL ARFs there have been more than 12,000 of them sold over the past several years!

I think a lot of CL flyers will be impressed with the new CLPA ARF/ARCs when they get to see more of these flying over the coming months.

Regards,

Mike Callas · « **Reply #16 on:** October 23, 2010, 02:13:57 PM »

As a beginner, I'm afraid if it wasn't for C/L ARFs I would still be flying RC.

Working 9-10 hrs a day with a daily 3hr drive doesn't leave much time for kids/wife/chores let alone building a kit.
Fortunately I know my limitations, and if I built from a kit my planes would look like a Homer Simpson spice rack.

I know ARFs don't look/fly the best, but heh, I don't miss them as much when I dig up the pavement with them either!

Thanks Brodak!

Mike

Ward Van Duzer · « **Reply #17 on:** October 25, 2010, 09:37:57 AM »

ARF / ARC / KIT ? A kit is only a half step up from the ARF/ARC. You don't select wood. You don't cut wood. You don't shape wood.

Scratch building from a plan is real modeling/carpentry. How many left do that?

And now I hear our top drawers are having the "pros" build their wings and tails for them. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

"ARC"s in the Walker cup?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing any of this...only those who do without thinking about it.

This non-competitor could care.

W.

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #18 on:** October 25, 2010, 03:48:51 PM »

Quote from: Ward Van Duzer on October 25, 2010, 09:37:57 AM

ARF / ARC / KIT ? A kit is only a half step up from the ARF/ARC. You don't select wood. You don't cut wood. You don't shape wood.

Scratch building from a plan is real modeling/carpentry. How many left do that?

And now I hear our top drawers are having the "pros" build their wings and tails for them. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

"ARC"s in the Walker cup?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing any of this...only those who do without thinking about it.

This non-competitor could care.

W.

Hi Ward,

We have had ARCs and partial ARCs in the Walker Cup for many years. Amazingly, our little Spaceship is still spinning and our civilization has not come to an end (at least not due to ARCs flying in the Walker Cup! ;-).

Actually, I have thought about it a lot, and did some research on the history of Mr. Jim Walker and his Cup. My guess is that many of the top pilots who do compete for the cup using ARCs, and component parts (wings) also thought about it. And some also know the history of Jim Walker, and understand how he felt about ARC/ARFs.

Mr. Jim Walker would be VERY glad and proud to see ARCs and even more so if they were ARFs flying for a Cup named after him! It has always puzzled me to hear some CL people talk reverently about the Walker Cup and how it MUST be flown by only BOM planes etc. etc. They obviously have never read anything about Jim Walker. He was 100% for ARFs and firmly believed that ARFs were the future of model aviation. He manufactured 230,000,000 ARFs (that is not a typo, it really is 230 million! Free Flight, CL and some RC) I think it would break his heart if he knew that the Cup in his honor would not allow ARFs to be flown to win it!

Here is a short quote:

"With the exception of the" Fireball, still a reasonably prefabricated kit in this day of ultra prefabrication, A-J is not in the kit business, but is primarily concerned with simple ready-to-fly models.

AIR TRAILS PICTORIAL - May, 1950"

A-J of course is "American Junior", Jim's very successful model company.

For those who have not read it, here is the link to the Jim Walker site:

http://www.americanjuniorclassics.com/

There is a wealth of historical model information here. There are many pages of writings and reports. Jim states, multiple times, his strong feelings about how ARFs are the only way modeling will grow and become a mass market in the future (he wrote much of this in the 1940 and 1950s, he was ahead of his time in many ways :-). His passion was to produce ARFs. He clearly understood that the market for scratch built and kit built models was very small and the market for ARFs was very large! He proved it by selling millions of ARFs while others were selling only thousands of kits. His company was a great American success story. :-)

So Ward, if you were lamenting the use of ARCs for the Walker Cup as a "bad" thing, then I beg to disagree with you, as would Mr. Walker. But, if you did not mean this, then I am sorry for misunderstanding you. :-)

Regards,

bob branch · « **Reply #19 on:** October 25, 2010, 05:56:25 PM »

I always am a little in the dark when someone comments that arf/arc's haven't brought folks back to cl. They brought me back, plain and simple. If anyone thinks there have been no more patterns flown because of those 12000 some arf/arc's out there, I think you are not looking at reality. For those of us who enjoy them, and at this many airplanes it seems like there are a lot of us who do, there are a lot of patterns being flown that would not ever be flown without them. Take that many people away from local contests and do you have enough left to have a decent contest? If there are only one or two fliers in a class, is it still a contest worth competing in or just a fun fly? Seems to me that the more people who are flying at a contest and the more that are in each class the more fun all of us have. I fly the pattern to fly it the best I can with an airplane that I think looks nice. If I think an arf/arc looks nice then that is good enough for me. I still enjoy seeing the work of people who enjoy building. They are wonderful to behold. But not what everyone wants to do. A lot of people just like to fly stunt. So why not just let everyone enjoy rather than try to poo poo some or make believe its not happening? There IS room for everyone.

just my 2 cents worth.

bob branch

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #20 on:** October 25, 2010, 06:01:46 PM »

Quote from: bob branch on October 25, 2010, 05:56:25 PM

...
They brought me back, plain and simple.
...

Hear hear. The one contest I've been to there were three fliers in the beginners class, and I was the only one who brought a shop-built airplane. The other two were ARFs, and the fellas that had them were as happy as could be.

I'd rather fly as one of three against a couple of ARFs, in a well-attended contest, than go out and fly with five other guys and spend the rest of the day bitching about how the sport is dying. I will always build my own planes, just because I'm weird. But it's ARFs that are keeping the flying fields open and the hobby shops humming.

bob branch · « **Reply #21 on:** October 25, 2010, 06:19:37 PM »

Tim

I don't think you are wierd. Sorry. I have enjoyed building kits and scratch builds all my life. But I don't feel much like it any more. I still enjoy flying tremendously,both rc and cl. I enjoy the people in both. I still build one or two models a year. Probably will build 2 kits and finish one scratch build this winter. But I have probably done a dozen arf's this year alone in rc and cl and will build some more this winter. But next year I will be flying arf/arc's when I compete in cl. I really like the ones I have and they fly very well. For me I do not feel the need to do a full build. I am sorry that offends some in the hobby. But I fly for my enjoyment, not theirs.

Other beginners and intermediates seeing you fly a full build airplane (kit or scratch) may entice them to do the same, or they may find like me that the ard/arf does what they want. Either way the more the better to me. Will I be at the NATS next year? No. I have no interest in that. Its been shown you can compete there with an ARC/ARF if you want. Doesn't mean the person who wins will, but you can still fly and compete.

bob branch

Paul Taylor · « **Reply #22 on:** October 26, 2010, 09:36:33 PM »

Well maybe building a NAT's front row stunt plane is not for everybody. I will never build a 20 pointer for several reasons. And if there were no ARF I would be grounded right now. I have have built a few kits and tried my hand at scratch building. All my planes are way too heavy and just don't fly worth a crap. Says a lot about my building skills.(and maybe my flying skills too) I am a very bad builder but I do my best and I have not really built a good flyer yet. That is not stopping me from trying. I just don't have the time, or a good place to build. I wish I lived close to someone with some skills that could teach me to build light, straight with a 20 point finish.
I love to fly, hang out with the guys at the field and I my hangar is full of ARFs.

So thanks Brodak, and Top Flite.

Brett Buck · « **Reply #23 on:** October 27, 2010, 01:04:01 AM »

Quote from: Rudy Taube on October 25, 2010, 03:48:51 PM

We have had ARCs and partial ARCs in the Walker Cup for many years.

Rudi, I don't think this is correct, and I hope we aren't straying into "Peabody" territory here. The only thing that could be construed as an "ARC" is Orestes's airplane, and that has been validated as MEETING the current interpretation of the BOM. Otherwise, that's it - there have been no others, and I know all the players.

Brett

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #24 on:** October 27, 2010, 02:19:57 AM »

Hi Brett,

No worries about the straying ........ ;-) I am 100% in agreement with you that Orestes's airplane met the AMA BOM "RULES". I did not want to open that "can of worms" so I just said ARCs, but yes your correct, they are what I was referring to as ARCs in the Cup. ....... FWIW: I really appreciate the fact that a very respected Nat's Champion, Walker Cup holder, and BOM supporter like you was one of the very 1st people to immediately and firmly come to the defense of Orestes's plane as being completely legal under our new rules. You were very instrumental in the successful blunting of the few but loud "bashers" after Orestes well deserved victory. This was made even more admirable coming from someone who feels so strongly about the BOM issue. It is the integrity shown by guys like you that make CLPA a great event to be part of, thank you.

As to my term "..... partial ARCs ..." I guess I should have defined this better. By "partial ARCs" I mean what some people call "component parts". In CLPA this is mostly WINGS. IMHO the wing is the most important part of our planes (maybe 2nd to the power? ;-). It is also the part that is very difficult for many to build light, strong, and straight. So maybe I should say "partial parts", or

In my research on ARCs/ARFs, I talked to large CL mfgs. and small CL cottage mfgs. I was surprised to discover how common it was for many top flyers to buy wings, some were just cores, some were balsa covered, some built up, etc. .... (BTW, they were all clear that YOU never bought one! :-)

On a related topic: I must admit that I was really surprised to find out that there have been over 12,000 CL ARFs/ARCs (mostly ARFs) produced and sold already. When I started the research I had guessed that the # would be a few thousand. The 12,000 is a confirmed min. #, I still have more research to do so that # may be even higher. :-)

I have the greatest respect for Mr. Walker and the wonderful Cup named in his honor. I stand by my comment that, after studying his history, I'm sure he would be heartbroken if he knew that ARFs were not allowed to compete for his Cup. But I'm also sure, as a mfg. who sold 230 million ARFs, that he would be thrilled that there are more than 12,000 CL ARFs out there helping to keep the hobby he loved alive and well in the world by allowing more people to have the opportunity to enjoy flying CL! :-)

Warm Regards,

Brett Buck · « **Reply #25 on:** October 27, 2010, 10:32:48 AM »

Quote from: Rudy Taube on October 27, 2010, 02:19:57 AM

I have the greatest respect for Mr. Walker and the wonderful Cup named in his honor. I stand by my comment that, after studying his history, I'm sure he would be heartbroken if he knew that ARFs were not allowed to compete for his Cup.

   All I can say is that the vastly overwhelming percentage of those surveyed did not want to eliminate the BOM and I think you will find that attitude even more nearly universal in the competitive ranks. The event is far more than the flying, and I find it sad that a highly aggressive but very small group is so desperately working to undo that. Particularly when at least some of them are doing it, or encouraging others to do it, for perceived economic gain.

   Mr. Walker was about providing toys for children. That's a very laudable goal. He was noted for being a difficult person to work for, because he was so insistent that "a child will never be disappointed in an American Junior product". But stunt competition (and to be honest, any competition event) has never been nor will ever be about children.

   It's my personal opinion that allowing ARFs to compete on an even basis probably contributed to the demise of almost all of the current competition events. At the very least, allowing them didn't help stem their losses. Stunt is about the only growing event in national competition. Even in off years (like this year) it tends towards the largest single competition category at the NATs.

   I note that given my personal knowledge that there are very very few "component" parts in Walker trophy competition in recent years, and those are marginal cases even to *me*. And if anything, national competition is going to get more picky on this topic, not less.

   But I realize that I am not going to convince anyone. This is the same argument we have been having for about 10 years since a few people saw the profit potential in selling ARFs and decided to mislead people about the relationship of ARFs for sport fliers, and competition rules used for one week a year. ARFs are welcome in all competitions outside the Nationals and have been since 1974 or so. They will not be allowed in National Competition for the foreseeable future, and I will continue to advocate that.

   Brett

   p.s. and just to be clear, I am not Anti-ARF. I am anti-"changing the rulebook to permit a tiny few people to buy $3000 RTF models to fly for a National Championship" - because at its root, that's where this all started and ultimately what it is all about.

RandySmith · « **Reply #26 on:** October 27, 2010, 11:35:10 AM »

One thing needs to be noted, ARFs and ARCs are pefectly ..Legal... to fly in... ANY..... PAMPA class held at any contest,
That includes the U.S NATs
In any PAMPA class held. It does NOT include the events JR. SR. or Open.
I mention this only , because many times , people are confused about the NO BOM rule in PAMPA classes.

Regards
Randy

bob branch · « **Reply #27 on:** October 27, 2010, 12:07:56 PM »

Brett

Actually I think there are two discussions but people are trying to think there is only one. I could not give a hoot in heck about bom at the NATS and most people who fly primarily arf/arc's couldn't either. A few will, and in my earlier post I was not referring to the Russian planes but an electric T-Rex that was flown at the NATS this year, though I am aware of the planes you mentioned as well. For folks like yourself who fly at the NATS my guess is most of you feel your scratch planes can fly better than most of the arf's/arc's that are out there. Ya, there may be an exception and I can see how some would feel strongly about that. I think the NATS having bom is not a big issue for the majority of 12000 arf/arc's flyers out there. They are primarily being flown locally.

And speaking locally, the bom rule is in effect at my local contest and I am not able to fly an arf there due to the appearance points. I fly an arc in it but I would prefer to fly an arf. The next closest contests from the one and only local one I have allow arf's and no appearance points are awarded but they involve a minimum of 8 hours driving to attend. These local fliers can often make the difference between a competition and just having a demonstration event in some classes. I hate to see those fliers essentialy told you cannot compete with the planes you fly because you will loose the points awarded for appearance and are thus just window dressing. I think its two different issues. I don't see why there cannot be a national way to accomodate both.

just my humble opinion,
bob branch

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #28 on:** October 27, 2010, 12:43:56 PM »

Bob,
in a local event where appearance points are given,, the MOST you can get with a BOM ~ appearance Points qualifying model is 20. typically most garner 12 to 15 points in my observation. This being the case, all you have to do to overcome that flying an ARF is ONE point per manuever . The skill to improve one point per manuever is probably less work ( at least up to advanced levels) than the time required to develope the skils to finish on a higher level, say to get 15 to 20 app. points. so fly the ARF, just fly better

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #29 on:** October 27, 2010, 12:48:02 PM »

Orestes is in. So. The way the rules stand these days if you finished and covered the plane and assembled the big pieces you're BOM legal in JSO. ARCs obviously qualify.

Dick Pacini · « **Reply #30 on:** October 27, 2010, 01:01:25 PM »

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do have a few thoughts regarding the discussion.

The $3000 RTF planes are definitely for a niche market. The cost is high and out of reach for the majority. However, haven't some of the best top scoring conventionally built models ended up costing in the 4 digit range? The big difference, obviously is the plug and play vs a time and labor intensive effort to create and scratch build.

There could be restrictions placed on ARF models, such as they must be available at a retail level from several sources and must not exceed an advertised selling price of (pick a number) say $300. Right now, I believe all the ARF's on the market are under that number, which could be adjusted as needed to accommodate inflation.

There could also be a flat number for appearance points of an ARF.

I think these ideas address most of the concerns about ARF's competing at the National level. It would really be interesting to see how a plane like the T-Rex or the new SV-11 would do at the hand of a crack pilot.

RandySmith · « **Reply #31 on:** October 27, 2010, 01:21:43 PM »

"And speaking locally, the bom rule is in effect at my local contest and I am not able to fly an arf there due to the appearance points."

Hi Bob

You should encourage them to use PAMPA classes at this local contest, that way anyone ...CAN...fly ARFs in the contest

If They do already use PAMPA classes you ..CAN...fly them

There is NO BOM rule in PAMPA classes, and I cannot remember the last contest I saw that didn't use PAMPA classes
Regards
Randy

Norvaldo · « **Reply #32 on:** October 27, 2010, 03:48:10 PM »

Or FAI.. (The rest of the world)

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #33 on:** October 27, 2010, 08:43:34 PM »

Back on topic for a minute. Which is ARE ARFS worth the work to make them work. After spending two days plus doing a profile fues that will last for an ARF Streak, I'm beginning to wonder about my ARFing opinion. At this moment I've a genuine old fashioned 1/2 inch balsa motor stick with genuine old fashioned maple mounts sandwiched between 5ply 1/8inch. All sanded out, looking good, ready for silkspan, filler and dope. While I was at it I cut out 1/8inch tail feathers. So there I've got nearly half the model made new. I've the ready made wing to slip in and... except there's a bit of hitch in the controls which I almost but not quite fixed and... forget about a Tom Morris setup which I prefer and the trailing edge has the dreaded S curve Streak warp... definitely needs a new piece of balsa to really fix that... Makes me want to do a wing from scratch. My personal question of the day. AM I ARFING MYSELF, after all, when choosing to ARF.

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #34 on:** October 27, 2010, 09:15:30 PM »

On the other hand, a few years back when I was a retread babe fully in the crashing stage, all my flyables were in piles, broken up, plowed in. Nothing to fly. Nadda. I bought an ARF streak, an LA25, scrounged a tank. In the air in a week. Flew that for a season and a half. Flew myself out of beginner with that ARF. Doubt that ARF was in much better shape than this one I'm fixing now..

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #35 on:** October 27, 2010, 09:40:21 PM »

As for Peabody. It's my opinion that he gets summoned by some to stand in for the Boogie Man. BOO! As far as I'm concerned he's blue collar foot soldier blunt and FUNNY.

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #36 on:** October 28, 2010, 12:40:43 AM »

Hi Dennis,

I'm sorry to hear about your second FS problems, but I am glad that the 1st one worked out so well.

Your point is well taken. Some of the early CL ARFs took some of the "ARF" out of the term "ARF".

We had the same problems with the 1st generation of RC ARFs 40 years ago. They always needed a little rework, but they were still a faster build than a kit. RC ARFs were one of the main reasons for the amazing growth of RC modeling. Now the RC ARFs are absolutely fantastic. Now you can buy a beautiful ARF plane on a Saturday and fly it in a contest on Sunday. This allows many more people to enter this hobby and enjoy flying models. This INCLUSIVE attitude that ARFs brings to the hobby is a large factor in the hobbies growth, or at least they can help slow down it's natural demise.

The FS and the other ARFs from Tower hobbies were really the 1st generation of CL ARFs. It is important for everyone to note that we are in about our 3rd generation of CL ARFs now and the improvements have made them truly ARC/ARFs CLPA aircraft. Other than my conversion to E power, my new ARC SV-11 and ARC Impact do not seem to need any mods or help at all to become excellent CLPA planes.

Maybe we can just hope that Tower does an update on the FS fuse for you wet flyers. I bought one of the 1st ones made and have had no problems, but I think mine has had an easier life than most.

Regards,

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #37 on:** October 28, 2010, 12:52:36 AM »

Quote from: Norvaldo on October 27, 2010, 03:48:10 PM

Or FAI.. (The rest of the world)

Hi Norvaldo,

Thank you for reminding us that the rest of the world does not use Appearance points or the BOM rule, therefore ARFs are allowed to compete without any penalty. That means that over 95% of the planets population has survived just fine without this rule. When I see photos from other countries contests on this forum or in magazines the planes still seem to look very nice and all the pilots have big smiles on their faces and everyone seems to be having a lot of fun!

I hope more CL flyers from outside the USA give us their input. I think that more people in this country need to see that the planes will still be nice without the BOM and without appearance points. And they may come to understand that if we remove this rule we will not fall off the edge of the earth. The experiment has already been done decades ago and it was a great success for 95% of the planet.

I have heard from many CL people that ARFs have had a positive effect on the number of CL modelers in their area, with no negative effect. With over 12,000 CL ARFs out there in the world, there have to be a lot of pilots that are having fun flying CL! :-)

As my good friend Bob H. says: "we need to become more INCLUSIVE in CL and less EXCLUSIVE!"

Thanks again for your input.

Regards,

Larry Cunningham · « **Reply #38 on:** October 28, 2010, 08:36:40 AM »

I don't always agree with Peabody. But when I do, it's DOS EQUIS..

(Hope I didn't stray into "Buck Territory".) ;->

L.

PS - Truly, almost no one really cares.

"With sixty staring me in the face, I have developed inflammation of the sentence
structure and definite hardening of the paragraphs." -James Thurber

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #39 on:** October 28, 2010, 08:55:46 AM »

Yeah. I always preferred Dos Equis to Carona. Bars in the NE always seem to have Carona, rarely have 2 Xs. Or do you mean the 2Xs over the eyeballs when Mr. P lands one (verbally of course) on the chin of any various cartoon characters in our fair... and lovely... HOBBY!

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #40 on:** October 28, 2010, 09:00:45 AM »

Last night I noticed the inflammation of my sentences. Alas. Took an aspirin, let it go.

SteveMoon · « **Reply #41 on:** October 28, 2010, 09:04:04 AM »

Negro Modelo.....even better!

Honestly, I can't believe I just read this whole thread. It's been said over
and over....there's room in the hobby for everyone and every type of model,
scratch built, kit, ARC/ARF, rescued from the trash can, etc, etc.

I'm currently scratch building (heck, I even helped design the plane) a new
take apart plane, I have an ARC Impact on the wall I fly occasionally (and
it's awesome), I have an electric kit built Imitation, a kit built Gieseke Nobler,
a component kit G Nobler, a scratch built Simons Shoestring, etc, etc. And,
I have a company that sells ARCs, component kits and other items. I think
you get the picture here. There's room for all of it. Just because one person
feels that one area of the hobby doesn't benefit them that doesn't mean
that it doesn't benefit someone else.

Later, Steve

Bradley Walker · « **Reply #42 on:** October 28, 2010, 09:46:08 AM »

Quote from: Steve Fitton on October 21, 2010, 01:18:01 PM

Personally, I'd like to see Brodaks go back to expanding their excellent in house kit line and let the ARFs die away. My 2 cents (no, not a political diatribe) after seeing years of the ARFs come and go is that stunt was a better place without them. I don't think they brought hordes of new pilots into stunt, and the siren song of a killer big stunter without the effort required to actually build one left many dissapointed when the ARF simply didn't hold up under very hard use.
Keeping up with the myriad chinese QC issues with ARFs often left Brodaks factory people exhausted with just keeping up as they boxed and shipped hundreds of planes, then they had to deal with the scores of returns for shipping damage or QC issues. I think it left them *just barely* able to keep up with production of the existing in house made kits, and seems to have stifled the release of significant numbers of new kits.
I know even my club buddies might disagree, but as I watched them, skilled scratch builders every one, tinker and struggle away with whatever the latest ARF was, I can't help but feel that the ARFs stifled the development of pilots as well as kit production. Somebody who really wants to fly stunt deserves better than what the Chinese can produce...

I find this a very funny comment when it comes from guys who fly other people's designs and have never made a design of their own... I think that ORIGINAL stunt design is dead. Heck... I am the only guy my age lest a few that bothers to make a new design... TWO OF MINE ARE ARFs!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Stunt design died long ago. Everyone just buys cookie cutter planes... Be it ARF or kit. Stunt has become wholly unoriginal... There are like 50% Randy Smith planes at the Nats... Sharks are just the latest cookie...

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #43 on:** October 28, 2010, 10:50:39 AM »

The VISTA.

Steve Fitton · « **Reply #44 on:** October 28, 2010, 11:53:41 AM »

Quote from: Bradley Walker on October 28, 2010, 09:46:08 AM

I find this a very funny comment when it comes from guys who fly other people's designs and have never made a design of their own... I think that ORIGINAL stunt design is dead. Heck... I am the only guy my age lest a few that bothers to make a new design... TWO OF MINE ARE ARFs!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Just what the Hell does this mean?

!

This wasn't supposed to be some general anti ARF rant! This was supposed to be a comment in another thread that got deleted and then reposted as a stand alone thread for whatever reason. My original intent was to say that Brodaks would probably be better off not trying to restart ARF manufacture since the logistics were such a hassle. I further opined that I thought my club buddies would be better off relying on their considerable building talents than constantly messing with ARFs. Obviously, they and anybody else can do what they want, and in the end the market will decide if the ARFs remain in production or not. Anything else here is just a rehashing of the old ARF/AntiARF argument that will end up exactly where the last thousand ARF arguments ended up.
And further I apologise for lacking the intellectual brilliance to design my own stunter. If I ever come up with anything that improves the current state of the art, I will be sure to design my own plane around it...

Derek Barry · « **Reply #45 on:** October 28, 2010, 12:32:14 PM »

I feel you're pain Steve! I would be a little upset if I spent $250 on an ARF only to have it fall apart on the 3rd flight and never received a refund or a replacement. I have had a few ARFs as well, and pretty much all of them have been junk. Gavin has a Smoothie ARF, it flies good but every 5 flights I am gluing something back on, or taping the covering back to the plane. I had an Oriental ARF hanging in my closed by the ledouts (this is how I store all of my planes) and opened the door only to find it laying on the floor with both leadouts broken at the bellcrank. The quality has not gotten any better to my knowledge and there is no reason to think it will. Use anything you would like but be cautious when standing around someone that is flying an unmodified ARF.

I do not see where having an original design has anything to do with this topic?

??

Larry Cunningham · « **Reply #46 on:** October 28, 2010, 12:36:47 PM »

Quote from: Bradley Walker on October 28, 2010, 09:46:08 AM

...
Stunt design died long ago. Everyone just buys cookie cutter planes... Be it ARF or kit. Stunt has become wholly unoriginal... There are like 50% Randy Smith planes at the Nats... Sharks are just the latest cookie...

I'm not sure "designing" control line stunt models has ever been rocket science. (FWIW, I don't find rocket science that interesting ((calculating impact zones for orbital craft)), it seems more like hi tech clerking, using ancient FORTRAN software..).

Much of stunt "design" is really simply restyling existing formulas. You can shmoo the "numbers" a little, and you can think up a few innovative construction techniques, take better advantage of materials and modern tools (such as CAD drafting and laser cutting), but it's not terribly exotic or original. (Apologies to a handful of individuals who truly are being very innovative in their designs - we know who they are.)

That doesn't mean it isn't great FUN, of course! And very satisfying, well worth doing.

If we are honest, we'll admit there are far more innovations and new features in popular RC ARFs and even sailplanes (with reason: investment and market size involved). And BTW, one of the more challenging aspects of model airplane design is to make it ARF-able, that is efficiently producable in mass quantities, free of problems with quality and durability. It may also be desirable for parts to accurately "snap" together, self-aligning, for ease of assembly. (De-skilling is what it's called.)

Plans for traditional kits were notably less detailed, and the quality and precision of pre-cut parts was typically inferior. Many of the most popular designs were compromised in kits; some so-called "kits" were little more than a box of raw material.. (maybe that's why we bemoan loss of the "craftsmanship" involved in building them?). Compare them to modern kits and I think you'll find the new stuff superior in most every way.

Today's ARC/ARF model airplanes are just like virtually every modern manufactured item, there's more sophistication in designing the means to produce them than the item itself. It's a New World.

L.

"Nothing is as terrible to see as ignorance in action." -Goethe

Larry Cunningham · « **Reply #47 on:** October 28, 2010, 12:43:04 PM »

Quote from: Steve Fitton on October 28, 2010, 11:53:41 AM

...
And further I apologise for lacking the intellectual brilliance to design my own stunter. If I ever come up with anything that improves the current state of the art, I will be sure to design my own plane around it...

Yes, and keep it a secret, Steve. Then go kick some butts with it!

L.

"The greatest truths are the simplest." -A.W. Hare

Eric Viglione · « **Reply #48 on:** October 28, 2010, 09:04:59 PM »

Don't feel bad Steve, I'm right there with you... just another un-original schmuck flying cookie cutters too I guess, heh.

EricV

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #49 on:** October 29, 2010, 01:01:36 AM »

Hi Steve F.

Your Quote from your post #45 "....... This wasn't supposed to be some general anti ARF rant! This was supposed to be a comment in another thread that got deleted and then reposted as a stand alone thread for whatever reason. ...... "

RE: the split of the two topics, please see my post #4 to you on this thread, and Randy S. post #10. Your post was only misplaced for a few hours until Randy S. helped me by moving it back here. Again, I am sorry for my mistake.

The reason I split the topics is because Dick P's informative thread was on a very specific, narrow topic RE: the loss of a major CL ARF mfg. Your post on his thread began to go in a new and different direction when you started to denigrate ARFs and extol the benefits and preference of Kits over ARFs. Your new subject is fine with me and led to a lot of informative input. I just thought it deserved its own Subject TITLE and to become it's own thread. I'm sorry that this seems to have offended you in some way, that was not my intent.

As you can see, your post did take this in a new and different direction from Dick's subject, as shown by the many comments made here. I may be mistaken, but this seems to me to have been a very civil discussion of an important topic that belongs on the "ARF" forum more than anywhere else .... maybe someday in the Rules area too?. I'm confident that it will continue in this civil and informative manner. :-)

For those that think a discussion of this important topic is futile, then I think they miss the point.

Regards,

Author Topic: Re: ARFs may not be for everyone? (Read 10726 times)

Eric Viglione